You know how people say one thing, but mean something else entirely?

Graham Badman, leader of the consultation on home education, has put forward the idea of “support” for home educators. Gill mentions it here, and Carlotta talks about it here. He asked what kind of support home educators might like. And it’s fair to say that people have been pretty mistrustful of offers of support, having concerns that such an offer would inevitably have strings attached.

Yesterday, I suggested that (amongst other things) the government should offer low threshold, quality support that families could choose to access on a wholly voluntary basis. However, I don’t trust that any offer of state support would ever be “free”; some form of monitoring or control in the form of contact sheets, box ticking, evidence recording and outcome tracking would inevitably result. And grow. And strangle the very individuality and freedom that sets home education apart from other approaches to learning.

But that’s just me, and what do I know? How does the DCSF view support? I was intrigued to see a speech on family learning by Beverley Hughes published the other day. So what did she mean by family learning and what did she have to say about support?

Well, you can read the whole thing here, but here are some choice quotes, and a bit of a fisking:

Each and everyone one of us – I’m sure – will know from personal experience just how important family learning is in shaping lives – whether it’s as a mother, father, son or daughter.

Well, yes. Some of us have an incredibly well developed understanding of just how important family learning is in shaping lives, which is why we actually choose to do it full time, rather than sending our children to school.

Of course, what happens in families is rightly a private matter. But at the same time, all families – at some time or other – need support.

What happens in families is a private matter. Of course it is. Apart from when it isn’t. And you’ll decide when it isn't, won’t you Beverley? At some point, then, whether we like it or not, we are all clearly destined for her idea of “support.” How... supportive.

And we know that the costs of ignoring struggling families are borne not just by those involved – but ultimately by all of us.

Because it is inconceivable that a genuinely struggling family would voluntarily seek out help, isn’t it? Struggling families don’t like to miss out on a good opportunity for misery and heartache. Or is it possible that you are indeed euphemistically referring to families who just aren’t doing what you want them to do?

So it’s right that - where needed - government, public services and the voluntary sector step in to support parents, children and young people.

Well, you’ve convinced me then. Following their moral compass to the last, the government and its cronies only ever do what is right. We might think we know what we want, but they know what we really need: And if that’s support, then by golly these selfless support services (paid for by us of course) are damn well going to give it to us!

And one of the most important areas in which we can offer this kind of support is in family learning.

 Oh crap.

So formal education is clearly very important for levelling the playing field, and as a Government we’ve made this an absolute priority.

Phrases of doom alert for the sleepy: formal education, levelling the playing field, an absolute priority.

But the fact remains that a child only spends about 15 per cent of his or her time in the classroom.

Well, they’re done for then. Destined to a life that goes far beyond state intervention, unless, of course, you can get your totalitarian claws even further into them in the name of...

So if we’re to make more progress, it follows that we have to support what goes on in the other 85% of the time, in the home and in the community.

...progress! Yes! Towards our brave new world. So it follows that you kind people have to "support" what goes on, really, whatever that might be, for the remaining 85% of their time, absolutely wheresoever they are, including their own bloody homes. Can this woman not see that she is starting to sound exactly like Hitler? We may as well install the telescreens and tag everyone now. 

All of us here know that parents are a child’s first and most important educators.

An entirely necessary placation from the speech writer here...

Particularly so, in early years – where the impact of parents reading and playing with their children can be decisive in speech and language development.

... but here's that all-important qualifier Beverley is so fond of. Not so much after the child turns 5. Soon it will be by the age of 2. Then we must channel them into the system so that we can indoctrinate educate them and protect them from our definition of harm according to our glorious national curriculum and the bible that is Every Child Matters.

And as the child gets older, having a parent who takes an active interest in their child’s learning has a greater effect on their chances than the parent’s education, wealth or ethnicity.

At arm's length though, please, because they belong to in the state system.

So what we’re doing to improve family learning in the broadest sense – to make it a fun, vibrant and lasting feature of family life – is absolutely key to raising achievement levels and narrowing the gap.

Do you know what would make family learning a “more fun, vibrant and lasting feature of family life”, Beverley? If you kept your dictatorial, judgemental, statist snout out the “private matters” of families "in the broadest sense" and concentrated on getting these things right - things that your department is actually responsible for.

And this is one of the reasons why government has pledged more than £140 million over the next three years to support family learning. 

Government of generosity! Where would family learning be without such compulsory support? Just to leave you in no doubt as to what Beverley really means, because I appreciate that her euphemisms are weaselly to say the least, here’s her oxymoronic definition of support in a recent speech on Youth Crime:

...giving support to young people – and sometimes parents – to address the underlying causes of bad behaviour. Not ‘take it or leave it’ support – but support with conditions attached – non-negotiable, something for something.

She might be talking about gun crime. She might be talking about graffiti. She might be talking about truanting from school. Or she might be talking about unregulated home educators, come April.